MTEP15 Executive Summary

MTEP15 Executive Summary

Each year, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) develops the MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP). The MTEP is a comprehensive process that involves analyzing the myriad regulatory policy and reliability issues impacting our energy sector and developing a portfolio of transmission projects designed to maintain a reliable electric grid and deliver the lowest-cost energy to customers in the MISO region.

MTEP15, the 12th edition of this publication, is the culmination of more than 18 months of collaboration on a diverse geographic and regulatory landscape covering 900,000 square miles. The projects in MTEP15 support both reliability needs and congestion relief of the transmission system

In MTEP15, the 12th edition of this publication, MISO staff recommends $2.75 billion of new transmission expansion projects for Board of Director approval

In MTEP15, MISO staff recommends the MISO Board of Directors approve $2.75 billion of new transmission expansion projects through 2024. Of particular note is the $1.4 billion in new project investment recommendations just within the 24 months since integration of MISO South members. $1 billion of this investment in MTEP15 represents 98 new projects.

The MTEP process seeks to identify projects that:

  • Ensure the reliability of the transmission system
  • Provide economic benefits, such as increased market efficiency
  • Facilitate public policy objectives, such as meeting Renewable Portfolio Standards
  • Address other issues or goals identified through the stakeholder process


The projects in MTEP15 achieve these goals in a way that ultimately benefits consumers across the region by ensuring a reliable grid that provides power where it is needed, when it is needed.

As the MISO region experiences changes and growth, MTEP also looks at specific issues to ensure the region is well-positioned to meet future demand and regulatory mandates. Notable work efforts performed during this planning cycle includes:

  • Increased efforts to evaluate transmission needs and identify solutions through Market Congestion Planning studies (Chapter 5.3)
  • Voltage and Local Reliability Study (Chapter 7.1)
  • Transparency around Resource Adequacy in the MISO Region (Book 2)
  • Greater interregional study emphasis along MISO’s seams (Chapter 8)
  • Design and implementation of Transmission Developer Qualification and Selection (Chapter 2.6)
  • MISO Clean Power Plan Analysis (Chapter 7.4)

MTEP15 Highlights:

  • 345 new projects for inclusion in Appendix A provide an incremental $2.75 billion in transmission infrastructure investment (Chapter 2.1)
  • $13 billion in projects constructed in the MISO region since 2003 (Chapter 3.2)
  • First competitively bid Market Efficiency Project (Chapter 5.3)
  • Voltage and Reliability Study yields projects (Chapter 7.1)
  • Projection of sufficient, albeit declining, capacity to meet MISO Region requirement through 2020 (Chapter 6.1)
  • Improved Interregional Planning pursuant to Order 1000 (Chapters 8.1, 8.2)
  • The Multi-Value Project (MVP) Limited Review confirms MVP Portfolio benefits (Chapter 7.5)


MTEP15 is organized into four books and a series of detailed appendices.

  • Book 1 summarizes this cycle’s projects and the analyses behind them
  • Book 2 describes annual and targeted analyses for Resource Adequacy
  • Book 3 presents policy studies. It summarizes regional and interregional studies
  • Book 4 presents additional regional energy information
  • Appendices A through F provide detailed assumptions, results, project information and stakeholder feedback.

Book 1: Transmission Studies

Chapter 2 – MTEP Overview

The 345 MTEP15 new Appendix A projects represent an incremental $2.75 billion in transmission infrastructure investment and fall into the following four categories:

  • 90 Baseline Reliability Projects (BRP) totaling $1.2 billion – BRPs are required to meet North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) reliability standards
  • 12 Generator Interconnection Projects (GIP) totaling $73.6 million – GIPs are required to reliably connect new generation to the transmission grid
  • 242 Other Projects totaling $1.38 billion ‑ Other projects include a wide range of projects, such as those that support lower-voltage transmission systems and/or provide economic benefit, but do not meet the threshold to qualify as Market Efficiency Projects
  • 1 Market Efficiency Project totaling $67.4 million

The MTEP15 cycle contains four cost-shared projects, three GIPs network upgrades and one market efficiency project.

The new projects recommended for approval in MTEP15 Appendix A are broken down by region and project type (Table 1.1-1). New projects in MTEP15 Appendix A contain two cost-shared Generator Interconnection Projects. Cost sharing information is provided in Chapter 2.2.

Region Baseline Reliability Project (BaseRel) Generator Interconnection Project (GIP) Market Efficiency Project (MEP) Other Total
Central $89,481,000 $0 $67,443,000 $194,551,000 $351,475,000
East $86,935,000 $1,330,000 $0 $406,235,000 $494,500,000
West $385,206,000 $72,318,000 $0 $465,125,000 $922,649,000
South $665,593,000 $0 $0 $314,611,000 $980,204,000
Grand Total $1,227,215,000 $73,648,000 $67,443,000 $1,380,522,000 $2,748,828,000
Table 1.1-1: MTEP15 New Appendix A projects by region and type

The active project investment for Appendix A, with the addition of MTEP15 new projects, increases to 863 projects totaling approximately $12.9 billion (Table 1.1-2) since MTEP03.

MISO Region Number of Appendix A Projects Appendix A Estimated Cost
Central 170 $3,095,150,000
East 196 $1,603,368,000
West 368 $6,931,160,000
South 129 $1,228,188,000
Total 863 $12,857,866,000
Table 1.1-2: Cumulative Active MTEP Projects

Chapter 3 – MTEP History

Since the first MTEP report in 2003, $10.5 billion in projects have been constructed in the MISO region. MISO expects an additional $3.2 billion of MTEP projects to go into service in 2015. Not including withdrawn projects, there are currently $20.56 billion of approved and pending projects in various stages of design, construction, or already in-service through the MTEP15 cycle (Figure 1.1-1). MISO surveys all Transmission Owners on a quarterly basis to determine the progress of each project.

Figure 1.1-1: Cumulative approved investment by facility status

Figure 1.1-1: Cumulative approved investment by facility status

Chapter 4 – Reliability Analysis

Maintaining system reliability is the primary driver of most MTEP projects. In support of this goal, MISO conducts Baseline Reliability studies to ensure the transmission system is in compliance with two sets of standards:

  • Applicable NERC reliability standards
  • Reliability standards adopted by Regional Entities (RE) applicable within the transmission provider region

These mandatory standards define acceptable power flows, voltage levels and system stability limits. MISO is required, as a registered Planning Authority/Planning Coordinator, to identify a solution for each identified violation that could otherwise lead to overloads, equipment failures or blackouts.

MISO’s studies include simulations to assess transmission reliability in the near and long term, using analytical models representing various system conditions two, five and 10 years out. MISO planners study reliability from a thermal perspective to ensure the transmission facilities do not overheat; and from voltage and dynamic perspectives to ensure the frequency remains stable. The results of these analyses, detailed in Appendix D, create a comprehensive assessment of long-term system reliability, as well as evidence for NERC compliance

Chapter 5 – Economic Analysis

In addition to identifying projects that maintain or enhance system reliability, MISO looks for economically justified projects by using the Value-Based Planning Process to identify solutions that minimize total system costs (Figure 1.1-2).

Figure 5.1-1: The goal of the MISO Value-Based Planning Process

Figure 1.1-2: Capacity versus Transmission Costs

The Market Congestion Planning Study (MCPS) identifies transmission needs and solutions to promote market efficiency from a regional view. By identifying and addressing both near-term transmission issues and long-term economic opportunities, this study seeks to develop transmission plans that provide customers access to the lowest-cost electricity.

Possible solutions to congestion were developed by both MISO staff and stakeholders. The solutions were tested for their robustness to meet system needs under a variety of expected scenarios, embodied by the MTEP15 futures.

Similar to the previous planning cycle, parallel economic planning efforts have been undertaken for the MISO North/Central and South regions to better engage the various stakeholders across the entire MISO footprint in the MTEP15.

Market Congestion Planning Study (MCPS) North/Central

The 2015 MCPS North/Central built on the progress made during the MTEP14 cycle, which identified several congested flowgates and evaluated the appropriate transmission solutions. By building on the MCPS 2014 analysis, the 2015 cycle focused on four specific areas that showed the highest congestion: Southern Indiana, Southern Illinois, Iowa/Minnesota and, Northern Indiana. Similar to the previous study cycle, the area with the greatest need, and therefore highest potential benefit, was on the border of Indiana and Kentucky.

Several solutions were designed in a collaborative effort between MISO and stakeholders. The solutions were tested for their robustness to address system needs under a variety of scenarios, embodied by the MTEP15 futures. Ultimately, working in concert with PJM and stakeholders, Duff – Rockport – Coleman 345 kV project, which offers both regional and interregional benefit to MISO and PJM, was found to offer the best value. This project completely mitigates the congestion on the MISO system around the Newtonville and Coleman areas and strengthens the 345 kV backbone in the region. In addition, the project fully addresses long-standing reliability issues around PJM’s Rockport station and obviates the need for the Rockport Special Protect Scheme and Operation Guide that protects the stability of the grid.

The project consists of two portions:

– MISO portion being Duff-Coleman 345kV

– PJM portion being the tie-in from Rockport to Duff-Coleman 345kV line.

MISO staff recommends that the MISO portion – Duff – Coleman 345 kV project to be approved as a MISO Market Efficiency Project (MEP).

Market Congestion Planning Study (MCPS) South

The 2015 MCPS South built on the progress made during the VLR Planning Study and the MTEP15 MCPS South, which identified several congested flowgates and evaluated the applicable transmission solutions. By building on the previous analysis, the 2015 cycle focused on four specific areas of MISO South: Amite South/DSG, WOTAB/Western, Local Resource Zone (LRZ) 8 (Arkansas), and Remainder of LRZ9. Similar to previous studies the areas with the greatest need, and therefore the highest potential, were in the Amite South/DSG and WOTAB/Western load pockets.

Several solutions were developed by both MISO staff and stakeholders. The solutions were tested for their robustness to meet system needs under a variety of expected scenarios, embodied by the MTEP15 futures.

In the 2015 MCPS South, a total of 82 unique transmission solution ideas were proposed and studied. MISO evaluated these solution ideas and formulated 11 project candidates for further robustness testing, in conjunction with south region stakeholders. Of the 11 project candidates, two were selected by MISO, pending stakeholder feedback, as potential best-fit solutions. Both projects produced a weighted present value (PV) benefit-to-cost ratio greater than 1.25, but due to voltage levels do not met Market Efficiency Project criteria.

  • East Texas economic project with an estimated cost of $122.5 million in 2015 dollars
    • A new 230 kV transmission line from Lewis Creek to a new 345/230 kV substation (NSUB2) by cutting into the existing Grimes to Crocket 345 kV line.
      • Note that MISO agrees Grimes alternative provides similar reliability and economic benefits
    • Rebuilding the existing Newton Bulk – Leach 115 kV line
  • Rebuilding the existing Mabelvale – Bryant – Bryant South 115 kV line with an estimated cost of $6.1 million in 2015 dollars.


MISO staff recommends that two projects may be approved as Other economic projects.

Book 2: Resource Adequacy

In conjunction with transmission studies, MISO assesses the adequacy of capacity for the current planning year and future planning horizons.

MISO’s ongoing goal is to support the achievement of resource adequacy: to assess if there is enough capacity available to meet the needs of all consumers in the MISO footprint during peak times at just and reasonable rates.

The MISO region has sufficient capacity for the planning year 2015-2016 and is projected to be resource adequate through 2020

This support recognizes that the responsibility for resource adequacy does not lie with MISO, but rather rests with Load Serving Entities and the states that oversee them (as applicable by jurisdiction). Additional resource adequacy goals include maintaining confidence in the attainability of resource adequacy in all time horizons, building confidence in MISO’s resource adequacy assessments and providing sufficient transparency and market mechanisms to mitigate potential shortfalls.

To date, the Resource Adequacy Requirements process has been a successful tool for facilitating and demonstrating Resource Adequacy in the near term, through such tools as the Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) analysis, the Planning Resource Auction (PRA), and the Organization of MISO States (OMS) MISO Survey. With the resource portfolio now evolving due to coal retirements and the increase in gas-fired generation, MISO is evaluating the Resource Adequacy Requirements and related resource assessment and adequacy processes to ensure they serve as a successful platform to facilitate demonstration of Resource Adequacy going forward in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations.

Book 3: Policy Landscape Studies

MISO strives to provide meaningful analyses to help inform policy discussions and decisions amidst evolving state and federal policies, fuel prices, load patterns and transmission configurations.

Chapter 7 – Regional Studies

Voltage and Local Reliability Study

Under the MTEP14 planning cycle, MISO, in collaboration with stakeholders, performed a study of the South Region load pockets. The study was to determine whether or not there are transmission alternatives that may lower overall cost-to-load by reducing Voltage and Local Reliability (VLR) resource commitments necessary to maintain system reliability. MISO identified such transmission upgrades necessary to maintain reliability that are cost effective by providing production cost savings in excess of their cost. More specifically, MISO recommends network upgrades with an estimated cost of $300 million that provide production cost savings of about $498 million on a 20-year present value basis (Figure 1.1-3). This analysis was an outcome of the study of reliability issues driven by new firm load additions, existing and planned future generation with signed interconnection agreements and confirmed generation retirements via Attachment Y process.

Figure 1.1-3: List of cost-effective Reliability Network Upgrades recommended in MTEP15

Figure 1.1-3: List of cost-effective Reliability Network Upgrades recommended in MTEP15

The VLR study additionally looked at mitigating all transmission issues resulting from potential shutdown of approximately 7,200 MWs of VLR units. Transmission costs for mitigating all such issues are estimated to be more than $1.8 billion. When compared against the 2014 year cumulative make whole payments for these VLR units of approximately $70 million, it was concluded that the network upgrades are not cost effective.

The VLR study further investigated potential scenarios involving the shutdown of subsets of VLR units rather than the entirety of the load pocket VLR units.  This analysis assumed no new VLR commitments would occur as a result of eliminating dependence on select existing VLR commitments. Various scenarios studied resulted in different transmission issues. Transmission costs for mitigating these issues in the various scenarios are estimated to be in the range of $23.5 million to $1.8 billion. Once again, it was concluded that these network upgrades are not cost effective compared to the avoided costs associated with mitigating the VLR commitments.

During the study process, MISO received an overwhelming stakeholder feedback that production cost savings was the most appropriate metric to evaluate benefits of eliminating VLR costs, which aligns with the benefit metric of MISO Market Congestion Planning Study (MCPS). Further, recognizing the uncertainties in the region on potential size and locations of future generation additions, retirements and new load growth, stakeholders provided extensive feedback that led to formulation of four futures. These are:

  • Business as Usual (known out-year load growth, fuel prices, generation additions and retirements)
  • South Industrial Renaissance (modeling increase in projected load growth)
  • Generation Shift (modeling future age related generation retirements despite lack of firm notifications)
  • Public Policy (modeling future RPS goals and standards in addition to age related generation retirements)

Given the breadth of uncertainties successfully captured within the futures used in economic studies, the analysis of understanding the benefits of eliminating or reducing VLR generation commitments was appropriately carried into the MTEP15 MCPS. Please refer to MTEP report Chapter 5.3, for further information on the MCPS.

Clean Power Plan Study

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule on June 2, 2014, designed to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil-fired generation units. MISO developed a three-phase study to analyze the impacts of the draft rule and provided comments to the EPA based on this analysis, which indicated reliability risks, increased costs from states choosing separate solutions and risks from differing rate and mass compliance approaches. The EPA’s revised final rule, issued on August 3, 2015, incorporated many stakeholder suggestions and comments as well as mitigated several risks identified by MISO and other interested parties. MISO’s three-phase study approach also increased understanding of many of the potential impacts of the final rule and acted as a dry run for how the final rule would be analyzed. Additionally, it provided information to impacted stakeholders to help formulate cost-effective compliance approaches.

Key takeaways from the study results include:

  • Regional compliance produces $4 billion to $11 billion in 20-year net present value production cost savings versus state approaches, while sub-regional compliance respectively produces $2.5 billion to $11.5 billion in savings. These figures do not include the cost of CO2 allowances.
  • Regardless of siting assumptions, electric and gas infrastructure costs for interconnection of new or converted gas units are comparable
  • Clean Power Plan constraints significantly increase congestion regardless of compliance approach, and transmission congestion is higher under a state approach than a regional approach
  • Multi-billion dollar transmission build-out would be necessary for compliance in the scenarios studied, driven by the level of retirements and the location and type of replacement capacity
  • Transmission expansion would be needed to mitigate reliability impacts of compliance, largely driven by coal retirements
  • Generation dispatch would change dramatically from current practices, requiring additional study to fully understand the ramifications

While the results offer valuable insights into how the energy landscape may change under compliance, the process of draft rule analysis also yielded valuable lessons that will shape MISO’s study of the final rule. In particular, it highlighted the value of a phased approach to analysis, which produced useful information prior to completion of the entire study. Additional lessons learned on study process and design include:

  • Stakeholder feedback throughout was essential to producing relevant outputs
  • The PLEXOS model was a good fit for analysis of the Clean Power Plan, allowing for explicit modeling of constraints on CO2 emissions, as well as state-by-state compliance
  • Studying one or two compliance actions (e.g. coal retirements, renewables build-out, re-dispatch) at a time allowed for developing a better understanding of the impacts of pulling these individual compliance levers.

The draft rule analysis was a significant undertaking, based on a complex and sometimes ambiguous regulation. Though the study of the final rule will necessitate similar efforts of rule interpretation and technical analysis, MISO is well-positioned to address these challenges. Over the course of the next year, MISO will continue to work closely with stakeholders, state regulators and neighboring ISOs to understand how this regulation will change the energy landscape and to plan for its implementation.

MTEP15 Multi-Value Project Limited Review

The MTEP15 Multi-Value Project (MVP) Limited Review provides an updated view into the projected congestion and fuel savings of the MVP Portfolio. The MTEP15 MVP Limited Review’s result is on par with the review of the original business case in MTEP11. The MTEP15 Limited Review provides evidence that the MVP criteria and methodology works as expected. The MTEP15 analysis shows that projected MISO North/Central Region benefits provided by the MVP Portfolio are comparable to MTEP11, the analysis from which the Portfolio’s business case was approved.

The MTEP15 analysis shows that projected MISO North and Central Region benefits provided by the MVP Portfolio are comparable to MTEP11

The review found that the MVP Portfolio shows decreased benefits compared to previous reviews. This lower level of benefits is related to the congestion and fuel savings that are largely driven by natural gas price assumptions. The results show that the Portfolio:

  • Provides benefits in excess of its costs, with its benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 1.9 to 2.8; a decrease from the 2.6 to 3.9 range calculated in MTEP14
  • Creates $8.4 to $34.7 billion in net benefits (using MTEP14 benefits for all categories besides congestion and fuel savings) over the next 20 to 40 years, a decrease of up to 38 percent from MTEP14

Chapter 8 – Interregional Studies

FERC Order 1000 requires coordination with neighboring regions to identify and evaluate possible interregional transmission facilities that could address transmission needs more efficiently or cost-effectively than separate regional transmission facilities.  While regional planning appears to address the majority of transmission issues, interregional planning and coordination offers the opportunity to improve the overall transmission expansion plan.  MISO is committed to continued collaboration with our stakeholders and neighbors to improve the interregional planning processes.

MISO-PJM Interregional Study

MISO and PJM Interconnection, a Pennsylvania-based regional transmission organization (RTO), concluded an 18-month MISO-PJM Joint Coordinated Planning Study in 2014 that looked at multiple futures and 80-plus major project proposals. While the joint study did not produce any actionable results, it identified additional areas for coordination.

For 2015, MISO and PJM agreed to focus their joint study on FERC Order 1000 compliance, a Quick Hits study, targeted coordinated studies and continuation of the interregional process enhancement review.

Quick Hits

The Quick Hit Study analyzed 39 market-to-market flowgates with $408 million of historical congestion between January 2013 and October 2014. The majority of the flowgates (22), accounting for $295 million of congestion, have planned or in-service upgrades from MISO’s MTEP or PJM’s Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP). The remaining flowgates had either no recent congestion or no recommended projects. The MISO-PJM Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committee (IPSAC) identified two potential Quick Hit projects for MISO and PJM to jointly evaluate.

  • Beaver Channel – Sub 49 161 kV SCADA Upgrade
  • Michigan City – LaPorte 138 kV Sag Remediation and CT Replacement


The two potential projects addressing historical congestion were evaluated for approval and funding. The Beaver Channel – Sub 49 flowgate SCADA upgrade was placed in service mid-year by the Transmission Owner. The current level of congestion seen in production cost models does not support incremental upgrades beyond the SCADA work, so no additional Quick Hit is recommended. MISO and PJM will continue to monitor the historical congestion on this flowgate.

The Michigan City – LaPorte Quick Hit project is not recommended at this time. Future congestion patterns in this area are uncertain due to a new 138 kV substation recently placed in service. The new station, a tap on the Michigan City – LaPorte 138 kV line, has an additional 138 kV connectivity and changes the historical congestion flows, especially on Michigan City – LaPorte, during high west-to-east transfers.

Continuing on the Quick Hits work, MISO and PJM agreed to focus on smaller, targeted study areas to address seams issues. MISO and PJM aim to complete all targeted study analyses by the end of 2015. Potential projects identified will be recommended for further study in 2016 in the appropriate MTEP or RTEP process(es).

MISO-SPP Interregional Study

The MISO-Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Coordinated System Plan (CSP) Study jointly evaluated seams transmission issues and identified transmission solutions to those issues. This study incorporated two parallel efforts:

  • Economic evaluation of seams transmission issues
  • Assessment of potential reliability violations

Interregional Projects Recommended for Regional Review

Based on the results of the economic assessment, MISO and SPP identified three projects for consideration as potential Interregional Projects. The following projects were evaluated in both the MISO and SPP regional planning processes:

  • Elm Creek to NSUB 345 kV
  • Alto Series reactor
  • South Shreveport – Wallace Lake 138 kV rebuild


MISO’s goal in interregional planning is to identify more cost effective and efficient projects that would not be found in traditional regional planning. Ensuring that the benefits of proposed projects outweigh the costs is a guiding principle for MISO transmission planning. After continued work with stakeholders and SPP staff, MISO determined through the regional review process that none of the proposed Interregional Projects demonstrated a clear and compelling benefit to the customers in the MISO region as an interregional project.  However, the Alto-Series Reactor will continue to be evaluated within the MISO regional plan.   The scope of the regional review conducted by MISO staff can be found toward the end of Chapter 8.2.   The other two projects are viewed as beneficial by SPP or SPP’s members and as such may proceed to their board for approval.   Note that the MISO-SPP Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) stipulates that both the MISO and SPP Board of Directors must both approve an Interregional Project for the project to receive interregional cost allocation.

Although the first coordinated study did not identify any cost shared interregional projects, MISO and SPP were able to advance our joint planning processes.  This first joint study between MISO and SPP is a significant milestone in the evolution of our coordination efforts.  MISO remains committed to taking lessons learned from this process and continuing to improve both the planning approach and associated cost allocation methods as appropriate.

The MISO Planning Approach

A defined set of principles, established by MISO’s Board of Directors, guides the organization’s planning efforts. These principles, last reconfirmed April 2015[1], were created to improve and guide transmission investment in the region and to furnish strategic direction to the MISO transmission planning process.

Guiding Principles for Expansion Plans

The system expansion plans, produced through the MISO planning process, must ensure the reliable operation of the transmission system, support achievement of state and federal energy policy requirements, and enable a competitive electricity market to benefit all customers. The planning process, in conjunction with an inclusive, transparent stakeholder process, must identify and support development of transmission infrastructure that is sufficiently robust to meet local and regional reliability standards, and enable competition among wholesale capacity and energy suppliers. In support of these goals, the MISO regional expansion planning process should meet each of the following Guiding Principles:

Figure 1.1-4

To support these principles, MISO’s transmission planning process reflects its commitment to reliability, market efficiency, public policy and other value drivers across all planning horizons studied. A number of conditions must be met through this process to build long-term transmission that can support future generation growth and accommodate documented energy policy mandates or laws. These conditions are intertwined with the MISO Board of Directors’ planning principles and include:

  • A robust business case for the plan
  • Increased consensus around regional energy policies
  • A regional tariff matching who benefits with who pays over time
  • Cost recovery mechanisms to reduce financial risk


MISO is proud of its independent, transparent and inclusive planning process — and grateful for the input and support from our stakeholder community. This support is essential to creating well-vetted, cost-effective and innovative solutions to provide reliable delivered energy at the least cost to consumers. MISO welcomes feedback and comments from stakeholders, regulators and interested parties on the evolving electric transmission system. For detailed information about MISO, MTEP15, Resource Adequacy and other planning efforts, visit

[1]  These Guiding Principles were initially adopted by the Board of Directors, pursuant to the recommendation of the System Planning Committee, on August 18, 2005, and reaffirmed by the System Planning Committee in February 2007, August 2009, May 2011, March 2013, August 2014, and April 2015.